Yesh Din: Justice for All?

More on the stench known as Yesh Din. Via NGO Monitor:

• Yesh Din, an Israeli NGO founded by members of Machsom Watch, claims to monitor legal procedures applied to Palestinian complaints against Israelis – both civilians and members of the security forces in the West Bank – in Israeli civilian courts. It also follows proceedings against Palestinian defendants in military courts.


• Yesh Din is funded by the European Union, the Irish, Dutch, German and British Foreign Offices, the New Israel Fund, the Open Society Institute, and private donors and foundations. As with other European-funded political NGOs based in Israel, Yesh Din’s agenda is one-sided, and ignores Palestinian violations of Israeli human rights, including terrorism.


• Their main activities consist of soliciting reports from Palestinians regarding alleged “criminal behavior by Israeli civilians”, and publishing reports on these topics. In these reports, many of the claims are subjective and cannot be verified.


• Reports generally omit the context of terror and use pseudo-legal human rights terminology and “apartheid” rhetoric to condemn Israeli policy.


• The appearance of academic methods notwithstanding, the methodological problems in the reports reduce Yesh Din’s credibility. In its report on military courts, conclusions are based on a small, unrepresentative sample of 800 cases, out of 42,000 indictment and arrest hearings conducted in the military courts in 2006 alone.

Promoting the Al Dura Myth: The Role of Amnesty and HRW

Promoting critical debate and accountability of Human Rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

The French court’s dismissal of the libel case brought by France 2 TV, in response to evidence that the death of Muhammad al-Dura was staged, has increased the examination of the NGO campaigns that propelled this issue.

The unquestioned repetition of claims by Palestinian “eyewitnesses” without further investigation reflects the standard pattern used by Amnesty International and HRW in condemning Israel for alleged human rights violations.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report that labeled al Dura’s alleged death as “a case of indiscriminate and illegal use of force.” HRW’s lengthy report based on “the accounts of eyewitnesses” simply repeated the claims of the Palestinian cameraman for France 2, without any independent verification.

HRW’s press release (November 21 2000) ostensibly condemned a Palestinian bombing attack on an Israeli school bus, in which a number of teachers and children were killed and injured. But most of this document refers to the “indiscriminate or excessive use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),” citing the al Dura allegations, and anonymous witnesses.

Amnesty International claimed that al Dura was deliberately targeted, and repeated Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) claims, with no supporting evidence.

Amnesty also used this unverified case as evidence of “long-standing patterns of human rights violation suffered almost exclusively by Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli forces.”

The image of al-Dura was a central icon at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference, in which both NGO superpowers played a central role. The father, Jamal, was a featured speaker in Durban.

Background:

On September 30, 2000, journalist Charles Enderlin from France 2 TV reported that Israeli soldiers shot and killed Muhammad al-Dura, a 12-year old Palestinian. Iconic images of al-Dura's death, filmed by France 2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahmeh, were shown worldwide, inflaming the Palestinian violence, and this was used to justify further attacks. Based entirely on this single source, major news organizations repeated the accusation and blamed Israel for “deliberately target[ing]” the child. An Israeli investigation showed that al Dura could not have been killed by the IDF (based in part on the angles made by the bullet holes), France 2 refused to release the unedited video footage, and Richard Landes suggested that the incident was staged in the framework of “Pallywood”. Philippe Karsenty charged France 2 with inventing and then covering up the al Dura myth, and on May 21, 2008, a French court ruled that he was not libelous in his criticism. The court also emphasized the evidence that Abu Rahma could not be considered “perfectly credible”, given his partisanship.

From the beginning, the politicized NGO network involved in human rights issues promoted the al Dura images, which were central icons at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference. And, the father, Jamal, was a featured speaker who was brought to Durban in order to amplify the impact. Many Palestinian NGOs joined the campaign, in close cooperation with NGO superpowers, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In their publications on this issue, the authors of these reports never questioned the accuracy of the claims or the lack of credible witnesses. This incident was also featured prominently in false claims that Israel was “deliberately targeting” Palestinian children.

Human Rights Watch

In a reported published in October 2000, Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemned Israel for the alleged death of Mohammed Al-Dirra, “a case of indiscriminate and illegal use of force.” The HRW report claimed to have compiled the report based “on the accounts of eyewitnesses,” but the only one that is mentioned is the Palestinian cameraman for France 2. HRW extensively repeated Talal Abu Rahmeh’s claims word for word, without any independent verification.

HRW also issued a press release on November 21 2000, headlined “Israel/Palestinian Authority: Gaza Bus Bombing Condemned -- All deliberate attacks on children must be investigated, prosecuted”. This statement was ostensibly issued to condemn a Palestinian bombing attack on an Israeli school bus, in which a number of teachers and children were killed and injured. However, HRW devoted over half the document to a condemnation of “indiscriminate or excessive use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),” citing the al Dura allegations, and anonymous “witnesses”.

Amnesty International

In 6 separate reports and publications between October 2000 and November 2001, Amnesty International repeated the allegation that Israel had killed Al Dura. Amnesty International’s major report Broken Lives – A Year of Intifada (April 2001), included a section headlined “Killings by Israelis”, which highlighted the iconic photo of al Dura and his father. The text dismissed the IDF’s investigation, but quotes extensively from a “sworn affidavit” from Talal Abu Rahma, provided by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), version of the events. Amnesty concludes that Israel was responsible for the killing: “Photographs taken by journalists…showed a pattern of bullet holes in the wall…where the two were sheltering. This suggested that Jamal and Muhammad al-Dura were targeted by the Israeli post opposite where they were cowering” (page 16, emphasis added).

Other Amnesty publications exploit this incident to condemn Israel, repeating the allegation that Al Dura “was shot dead by Israeli soldiers” and demonstrating “one of the many long-standing patterns of human rights violation suffered almost exclusively by Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli forces.”

For an appendix of Amnesty and HRW statements on Al Dura, click here.

Stop Funding Demonizing NGOs

From Stop Funding Demonizing NGOs:

For many years, Israel has been attacked by non-government organizations (NGOs) that invent (or distort) the terms of international law, falsify facts, and violate the universality of human rights. Some of the NGOs promoting the demonization campaigns get more than half their annual budgets from European governments. Additional funds come from the Ford Foundation. Israeli officials should make the case for a halt in this funding of demonization in every discussion with European ambassadors, heads of state and foreign ministers.

Adalah: Abusing "Civil Rights” to Delegitimize Israel

From NGO Monitor:

Funded by the New Israel Fund, the Ford Foundation, and a number of European governments, Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel claims to be an "independent" organization that promotes "civil and political rights" for the Arab minority in Israel. However NGO Monitor's detailed analysis shows that Adalah is active in promoting the Durban strategy of demonizing Israel using the rhetoric of human rights, "apartheid" and "war crimes”. Adalah’s campaign for a “Democratic Constitution” is based on “a one-state solution”, meaning the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.

Response to Nicolas Kristof´s op-ed "The Two Israels"

A Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, from Gerald Steinberg, Executive Director of NGO Monitor:

In his oped, Nicolas Kristof (June 22, “The Two Israels”) illustrates the danger of the “halo effect” that surrounds many powerful non-governmental organizations, which use distorted human rights claims to promote ideological agendas. While otherwise very professional journalists question and independently verify the claims of governments, corporations, and others, the statements of groups that assert moral objectives tend to be taken at face value. In this article, Kristof extols B’tselem and Machsom Watch (the women who "volunteer at checkpoints to help Palestinians through"). As documented by NGO Monitor, both are political organizations based in Israel that have appropriated human rights rhetoric for partisan goals, mix fact with fiction, and grossly distort history in order to promote their private agendas.

For example, Kristof repeats the simplistic statements of these NGOs regarding Hebron – a city of immense religious and historical importance to the Jewish people – without mentioning the impact of the 1929 massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish community. A limited return to this historic city was only possible after 1967. Since this context is inconvenient for promoting B’tselem’s political objectives, which would mean again removing the Jewish population from Hebron, these political activists focus instead on one-sided human rights allegations in which Palestinians are always victims, and Israel is always the oppressor.

Seduced by the “halo effect”, Kristof uses B’tselem’s very narrow window to strip the wider context and sell his own interpretation of the conflict and strip it of the wider context. Following B’tselem’s lead, Kristof also ignores the human rights violations of Jewish Israelis in Hebron, including the murder of a 10 month old baby – Shalhevet Pas by a Palestinian sniper. And claims regarding the impact of Israel’s separation barrier and checkpoints completely erases the fact that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israeli lives that have been spared by preventing the entry of suicide bombers. This is also a primary human rights issue, which the activists in B’tselem and Machsom Watch find inconvenient, and which no human rights group has documented using video cameras.

Expropriating human rights rhetoric for partisan claims, erasing the context and complexity of conflict situations, and applying human rights exclusively to one side of a conflict is morally unacceptable. Such biased approaches from NGOs have severely undermined the ethical foundations and credibility of human rights, which are by definition universal and must be applied equally.

Gerald Steinberg
Executive Director
NGO Monitor
Jerusalem, Israel

HRW’s Letter to President Bush on Gaza: The “Collective Punishment” Hoax

Promoting critical debate and accountability of Human Rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

In the first five months of 2008, HRW has issued thirteen statements condemning Israel’s response to deliberate attacks aimed at Israeli civilians launched from Gaza. [1] These statements exploit international legal terminology, repeat incomplete or false analyses of international law, and minimize or omit Hamas’ attacks on Israeli border crossings where humanitarian aid is delivered, as well as the diversion of this aid by Hamas. In contrast to carefully written, accurate and well-sourced legal analyses, these publications reflect a dominant political agenda.

HRW’s May 13, 2008, open letter to US President George Bush, signed by Joe Stork and published with highly politicized NGOs Gisha and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, (both of which have had to admit false factual claims in recent weeks) highlights this practice. The following is a point-by-point analysis of this letter:

Claim: Israel’s restrictions on the flow of goods and services into Gaza “constitute[s] collective punishment against the civilian population, a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

Analysis: HRW continues to apply the label of “collective punishment” selectively and incorrectly to Israel (see NGO Monitor’s analysis here). Restriction on the flow of goods in a war environment does not constitute “collective punishment” under international law. “Collective punishment” refers to the imposition of criminal penalties and does not refer to the legal act of retorsion (e.g. sanctions, blockades). In fact, pursuant to Article 23 of the Geneva Convention (which sets standards for the provision of limited humanitarian aid), [2] Israel has no obligation to provide any goods, even minimal humanitarian supplies, if it is “satisfied” that such goods will be diverted or supply of such goods will aid Hamas in its war effort. As numerous credible accounts have reported, Hamas has diverted supplies from Gaza’s civilian population. Although Israel is under no legal obligation and despite the diversion as well as attacks on the Israeli border crossings, including the April 9 attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot and the May 22 truck bomb attack at the Erez crossing, Israel continues to provide hundreds of tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza on a weekly basis. This is above and beyond any obligation under international law, and the claim of “collective punishment” is entirely unjustified.

Claim: HRW claims that “[t]he Israeli policy’s impact on the ability of armed groups in Gaza to carry out their attacks is highly debatable, and some Israeli military officials have openly questioned its effectiveness.”

Analysis: In making this claim, Joe Stork and HRW proffer military expertise that they do not possess and rely on unnamed and unverifiable “sources” to back these allegations. Moreover, they refuse to attribute responsibility to Hamas for the attacks, instead employing the phrase “armed groups.”

Claim: HRW argues that the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas “[does] not permit unlawful actions – in this case collective punishment – by the other.”

Analysis: This claim attempts to contort Israel’s lawful right to exercise self-defense against attacks on its civilians into a violation of international law. As shown above, Israel is not engaging in “collective punishment,” nor are Israel’s actions in any way “unlawful.” Indeed, under international law, the only legitimate uses of force are for purposes of self-defense or pursuant to Security Council authorization under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter, states: “[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Israel, therefore, has the unequivocal right to engage in self-defense to prevent attacks against its civilian population.

Claim: Israel maintains “continued effective occupation of the Gaza Strip.”

Analysis: Gaza cannot be considered “occupied” under any reasonable interpretation of international law. HRW claims that Gaza is occupied because Israel “still maintains effective control over the territory via its control of Gaza's land borders, airspace, [and] territorial waters”. This argument is false as a matter of fact and a matter of law, and largely parrots a “legal” opinion circulated by the PLO shortly prior to Israel’s disengagement. Under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as judicial interpretation of these provisions, [3] the standard of “effective control” refers solely to the exercise by a hostile army of governmental authority – not control of borders. Thus, in no way can Israel be said to exercise governmental authority in Gaza. Indeed, as Egypt controls the southern border of Gaza, and based upon its occupation of Gaza from 1948-67, under HRW’s reasoning, Egypt would also be considered to be occupying Gaza.

Claim: Gaza continues to be occupied because Israel “maintains effective control over … tax collection, and population registry.”

Analysis: The statement that Israel controls tax collection and the population registry in Gaza is also clearly false and HRW provides no source to support this allegation. Beginning in 1994, the Palestinian Authority became responsible for the establishment and collection of all taxes within Gaza, and this is now controlled by Hamas following its June 2007 coup. Israel has no power to set or collect such taxes. Pursuant to international agreement, Israel collects custom duties for cross-border transactions on behalf of the PA, but only a highly distorted interpretation would conclude that Israel is “controlling” tax collection in Gaza. Moreover, Israel has no control over what population registry the PA and Hamas choose to use (the fact that the PA and Hamas continued to use of the population registry system established by Israel following 1967 is not Israel's decision.) Finally, if Israel was still occupying Gaza, pursuant to Article 43 of the Hague convention, it would be obligated to re-enter Gaza in order to restore public order and security. HRW and Gisha cannot possibly be arguing for re-invasion of Gaza by Israel.

Claim: Gaza continues to be “occupied” because Israel “is the major source of electricity and, because Gaza residents are not permitted to obtain fuel except via Israel.”

Analysis: The status of “occupation” is not created by reliance on a foreign power for fuel or electricity. And under international law as analyzed above, Israel is not obligated to supply Gaza with fuel and electricity. Moreover, no obligation is created merely because there is a dependence on Israel for these items. HRW also does not provide any source to back the claim that “Gaza residents are not permitted to obtain fuel except via Israel.” In any event, Israel continues to supply Gaza weekly with millions of liters of fuel and thousands of kilowatts of electricity.

Claim: Gaza continues to be “occupied” because “Israeli military forces can and regularly do re-enter Gaza at will.”

Analysis: Again, territory is considered “occupied” under international law solely if the hostile army exercises the functions of “governmental authority.” The test is not whether an army has the potential to enter a territory to conduct military operations.

Conclusion: HRW’s “Open Letter to George Bush” continues the organization’s practice of distorting international law, creating legal obligations where none exist, and ignoring the role of Hamas in Gaza in order to advance its political agenda rather than universal human rights.

------

[1] In contrast to these thirteen statements, HRW issued no condemnation of the March 2008 murder of children in a Jerusalem school by a Palestinian terrorist; of the 2008 February suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Dimona; the murder of several Israeli civilians in rocket and shooting attacks carried out by Hamas; the April 9 suicide bombing at the Nahal Oz fuel depot; and the Katuysha rocket attack on an Ashkelon children’s health clinic on May 14, 2008. HRW’s February 29, 2008, report “Gaza Strip/Israel: Civilians Bear Brunt of Attacks,” is the only report issued in 2008 condemning the specific killing of an Israeli civilian in a Qassam attack. This report, however, largely condemns Israel for its self-defensive measures in Gaza. The May 9 killing of an Israeli civilian is referenced in HRW’s open letter to President George Bush. The victim, however, is not named, and the purpose of the letter is to condemn Israeli policy, not Hamas’ targeting of civilians.

[2] Article 23 provides that

Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,

(b) that the control may not be effective, or

(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may ma permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

It is argued that Article 23 does not apply to the case of Gaza. If that is so, then Israel is under no legal duty to provide even the minimal humanitarian supplies listed in Article 23.

[3] See, e.g., The Hostages Trial, Trial of Wilhem List, United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume VIII, 1949, at 55-6, available here (holding that “an occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government . . . To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied”.)

EU forces British taxpayers to fund the abolition of Israel

Did you know that the EU forces British taxpayers to fund NGOs campaigning for the abolition of Israel? The EU diplomatically supports a two state solution to the Mid East conflict based on two democratic entities which have secure borders, however, NGOs which oppose a two state solution, advocate the abolition of Israel, equate Israeli Liberal Democracy with apartheid South Africa and advocate recognition of and engagement with Hamas receive EU grants.

A report by NGO Monitor entitled “Europe’s Hidden Hand, EU Funding for Political NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" details (in as much depth as the public can access) who Brits are funding and what the groups advocate.

Its findings are pretty shocking.

Amnesty in 2007: Attacking Democracy instead of Oppression in Middle East

Promoting accountability in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

Summary: NGO Monitor has systematically analyzed Amnesty International’s Middle East coverage in 2007, applying a quantitative methodology, similar to that used to examine the agenda of Human Rights Watch.

The results show that in 2007 Amnesty singled out Israel for more condemnation than Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, and Algeria.

More items were published condemning Israel, than the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah combined. If detailed reports are used as an indicator, Amnesty ranks Israel and Iraq as equally the worst human rights abusers in the Middle East.

Israel’s democratic and open society ironically invites disproportionately negative reporting from Amnesty International. Access to information facilitates more comprehensive research than in less democratic regimes; democracy demands higher standards of human rights, according to Amnesty International’s Israel branch; external factors, such as media attention, dictate AI’s policy.

Amnesty's 2008 annual report (covering events in 2007) is yet another example of the NGO's highly biased approach. It presents a gross distortion of the conflict, selectively reports events to remove the context of terrorism and ignore human rights issues not related to its political agenda, while repeating un-sourced and anecdotal claims.

The Israeli Justice Ministry's response to Amnesty's June 2007 report, "Enduring occupation Palestinians under siege in the West Bank” stated that “Amnesty’s report is one-sided, immoral, and riddled with mistakes and numerous factual and legal inaccuracies, including scant mention of Palestinian terrorism."

Click here to read the complete report.

NGO Monitor Releases Groundbreaking Report on EU Funding of NGOs

NGO Monitor has released its report examining European Union (EU) funding of political NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The fifty page report, "Europe's Hidden Hand," reveals for the first time that between 2005 and 2007, the EU provided tens of millions of Euros from public money to NGOs whose activities directly contradict EU policy.

The report also details the lack of transparency and accountability in EU funding of NGOs.

The analysis has already begun to have an impact, as a Member of the European Parliament has utilized the report to press the European Commission to explain the inconsistencies in their NGO funding policy and process.

Read the executive summary in Hebrew or English.

Read the full report, Europe's Hidden Hand - EU funding for political NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict: Analyzing processes and impact.

NGO Monitor's 2007 Report on HRW: Bias and Double Standards Continue

When it comes to promoting accountability in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Human Rights Watch once again fails becuase of its bias against Israel.

"The point is not to equate, excuse or balance abuses but to demonstrate that reporting is based on human rights principles rather than partisan considerations." HRW's Position Paper on the Durban Preparatory Committee (April 21, 2008):

The following analysis [by NGO Monitor] demonstrates that HRW's own activities related to Israel continue to fall short of this basic standard of universality

Summary:

• Analysis of Human Rights Watch's use of the rhetoric of international law and other terminology shows continued double standards and misleading or false claims.
• HRW accuses Israel of “collective punishment” of Palestinians in a way that is inconsistent with both international law and past and present usage of the term by HRW itself.
• HRW’s focus on Israel in 2007 dropped to 2005 levels after 2006 marked a return to the extreme bias of the 2000-2004 period. The change in 2007 allowed more resources to be focused on countries committing major human rights violations.
• However, disproportionate emphasis on Israel continued, with major reports covering 400 pages in 2007, using the same methodologies as in 2006 that lack credibility.
• This contrasts with the limited attention on human rights violations in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the region.
• Israel was the focus of more multimedia items (audio, video, graphics) than any other country in the region.
• Reports on Israel continue to be based on unverifiable evidence provided by “eyewitnesses,” selected journalists, and other inappropriate sources. In some cases hard evidence has shown this testimony to be blatantly untrue.
• HRW mentioned one or more of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in a total of only 6 publications. Of these, only two refer to them by name; the other references are in passing.

This report includes quantitative analyses of publications from HRW’s Middle East and North Africa section, using a weighted scale methodology consistent with NGO Monitor’s previous analyses, and an assessment of the use of language in the HRW publications.

NGO Monitor’s analysis of Human Rights Watch's (HRW) output devoted to each country in the Middle East and North Africa region shows that the focus on and condemnations of Israel in 2007 returned to 2005 levels (see 2005 report). This follows a sharp increase in 2006 (see 2006 report). However, Israel is still the focus of nine percent of HRW's output on the region– significantly greater than Libya, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and other chronic human rights violators. The evaluation is based on a point system which accounts for both the volume of publications and their significance (a report clearly being much more significant and requiring more resources than a press release –see the methodological section of the appendix).

Use of Multimedia items

In 2007 there were more multimedia items on Israel (6 audio, video and graphics items) than any other country (4 for Hamas, 4 for Iran and 3 for Egypt – other countries received 2 or fewer). Most countries, including Israel, featured in one audio item each as part of the 2007 World Report. Israel's multimedia items also included audio commentary by Marc Garlasco on cluster munitions, pictures and audio on medical evacuations3, pictures and audio on students trapped in Gaza, and a video on cluster munitions. Multi-media material requires a higher level of investment by Human Rights Watch and can in many cases result in a larger impact than is the case in other types of HRW activities. When this increased impact is disproportionately focused on Israel, the issue of double standards becomes relevant.

Use of Reports

HRW puts a great deal of effort and resources into its major reports, often including a press conference and other public relations activities to accompany the publication. In many cases, the focus of a report is chosen weeks or months in advance of publication, and reflects a strategic decision regarding HRW’s priorities.
The disproportionate emphasis on Israel continued in 2007. The number of reports featuring Israel in 2007 (2)4 was equal to the number on Hezbollah, Egypt, and Iraq. Only Lebanon featured in more reports (3).5 Significantly, HRW officials chose not to issue any reports on Iran, Libya and Morocco in 2007. (In contrast, HRW’s press releases focusing on human rights violations in Iran constituted 17 percent of total press releases in the region, with Egypt targeted in a further 17 percent. Israel received 9% of the press releases, a proportionate amount given it received 10% of the over all focus).

Priorities within the Arab Israeli conflict

HRW’s priorities are also reflected in an analysis of the relative coverage of Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The analysis shows minimal attention to internal Palestinian fighting and an over emphasis on Israeli actions in both the conflict with Hezbollah and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Figure 3 demonstrates almost the same distribution between publications focusing on Israel and the total focused on all groups in conflict with Israel (i.e. Palestinian groups and Hezbollah). This was despite the fact that nearly half of all Palestinian fatalities were caused by intra-Palestinian violence during 2007. 6

When Hamas seized control of Gaza by violent coup in June 2007, there were many clear violations of human rights.7 Human Rights Watch itself documented a few briefly. One example was the execution by Hamas of a cook for Mahmoud Abbas’s Presidential Guard (press release “Gaza: Armed Palestinian Groups Commit Grave Crimes” - June 13). The cook was executed by “throwing him to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story apartment building in Gaza City”. Over the year, only 2 published items from HRW focused primarily on internal Palestinian violence, a third published item covered both internal Palestinian violence and attacks on Israelis. This is in comparison with seven documents focused on Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Further comparisons between Israel and those in conflict with her are available in the appendix, including a breakdown of the collective term Palestinians.8

Related articles - by relevance (full list)

Themes: Human Rights Watch (HRW)

HomePage Essential: Human Rights Watch (HRW)
October 17, 2006

NGO Monitor Reports: Human Rights Watch letter to Knesset condemning terror suspect detention bill
April 12, 2006
NGO Monitor Digest (Vol. 4 No. 8)

NGO Monitor Reports: Report on HRW’s Activities in 2006: Political Bias Undermines Human Rights
June 26, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: HRW/FIDH/OMCT statement on NGO official linked to PFLP
May 14, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Analysis of Ken Roth´s Defense of HRW´s Policy on Israel
March 15, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Gaza beach incident: Timeline of HRW involvement and activities June 9-21 2006
June 21, 2006
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Special Report: "HRW´s Report on Gaza: Lacking Credibility"
October 18, 2004
NGO Monitor

Articles of Interest: "The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia"
February 02, 2007
Andres Ballesteros, Jorge A. Restrepo, Michael Spagat, and Juan F. Vargas

NGO Monitor Reports: Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
December 28, 2006
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Special Report: "Activity Summary of Human Rights Watch March 2003 - March 2004 " April 14, 2004

Durban 2009 Update: European responses on NGO funding

Promoting accountability in the Arab-Israel Conflict, with thanks to NGO Monitor:

NGO Monitor has contacted the embassies of EU member states, as well as Switzerland and Norway, requesting information on their policy towards the UN Durban Review Conference scheduled for 2009. Specifically, NGO Monitor asked whether these governments had defined principles required of NGO grant-recipients regarding participation in the Durban Review Conference, and what lessons were learned from 2001.

Various governments have already made public statements expressing their concern over the Review Conference.

On January 23, 2008, the Canadian government announced that it would pull out of the conference and maintained that it will not fund NGO participation, marking a major change in comparison to the 2001 policies.

On February 15, 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said “France will not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001…I say to you: if ever our legitimate demands are not taken into account, we will disengage from the [Durban Review Conference] process."

On April 6, 2008, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, said that "[W]e will not participate [in Durban Review Conference] unless it is proven that the conference will not be used as a platform for anti-Semitic behavior." He also noted that the U.S. voted against U.N. resolutions seeking to convene a Durban Review Conference in 2009 because “we [the US government does] not believe there will be a meaningful review of any of the problematic aspects of the original Durban Conference.”

As seen below, many of the preliminary responses that NGO Monitor received from European governments were vague and did not answer the questions. Follow-up requests have been sent.

Extracts from some of the preliminary responses:

Austria: “…there has not been any funding for Austrian or international NGOs at the Durban I Conference in 2001, apart from including a few representatives as part of the Austrian delegation…In the same vain, for Durban II in 2009 it is not planned to support the participation of NGOs financially.” [click here for full text of Austria's response]

Britain: "The British Government believes that it is vital to avoid the disgraceful anti-Semitism that occurred at the time of the 2001 World Conference against Racism. … We want the 2009 Durban Review Conference to contribute to the global fight against racism and anti-Semitism….we are trying to influence the outcome from a position of engagement."

For the latest NGO Monitor report on UK funding for NGOs, click here. [click here for full text of Britain's response]

Finland: “[T]he Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland has not witnessed anti-Semitic behavior by the Finnish NGO’s. In the Durban 2001 Forum, the UN Association of Finland refused to support the NGO-statement for the reason that anti-Semitism was not condemned in the statement.”

For the latest NGO Monitor report on Finnish government funding for NGOs, click here. [click here for full text of Finland's response]

Switzerland: “The goal of the Durban II conference should be an evaluation of the progress achieved since 2001 in the combat against racism as well as an examination of subsequent steps to be undertaken.”

For the latest NGO Monitor report on Swiss government funding for NGOs, click here. [click here for full text of Switzerland's response]

Sweden: “Sweden wishes to see a Review Conference that is as operational and concrete as possible, keeping a clear focus on how States have implemented the recommendations of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action, agreed in 2001”. “…[A]ny expression or manifestation of anti-Semitism as totally unacceptable. This position will be reflected in the Government's preparations for the Review Conference at the national level.”

For the latest NGO Monitor report on Swedish government funding for NGOs, click here. [click here for full text of Sweden's response]

Government responses

The following governments had replied as of 13 April 2008 (this includes embassies which informed NGO Monitor they are awaiting responses from their Ministry of Foreign Affairs):

Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
United Kingdom

The following governments have not responded to NGO Monitor as of 13 April 2007:

Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Germany
Romania
Slovakia
Spain

UK Parliamentary Enquiry on development aid to Palestinians

NGO Monitor seeks to foster a comprehensive and intellectually honest debate on the critical issues surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. The aim of NGO Monitor is to challenge distortions and inflammatory rhetoric by providing information and analysis. The fundamental question we should all seek to answer is whether NGOs are positively contributing to the protection of human rights of Israelis. DFID is the Department for International Development in the UK. From NGO Monitor:

As a follow up to its submission dated October 12, 2006, NGO Monitor presented this updated report to the International Development Committee Inquiry on the Humanitarian and Development situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Summary of NGO Monitor’s Submission:

International Development NGOs are playing an increasingly visible and large-scale interventionist role in complex conflicts with humanitarian implications, such as the one between Israel and the Palestinians. Some of these NGOs, while engaged in legitimate projects to enhance civil society, reduce poverty and strengthen institutions, use development aid to pursue political goals which exacerbate conflict. Such partisan activities undermine their stated goals and those of their funding agencies, including government departments.

This report examines how funds given to three DFID-funded organizations -- Christian Aid, War on Want and Oxfam-GB -- ostensibly for humanitarian or development aid, are used for political campaigns which contradict DFID goals. UK policies to promote peace, “reduce how much [a] country relies on overseas aid,” and "support better Palestinian public institutions," are undermined by activities that seek to internationally isolate Israel by referring to it as an "apartheid state," by calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions, and by repetition of a rejectionist Palestinian narrative which ignores key causes of conflict. This report also looks at the biased political campaigning of DFID-funded NGOs with regards to current events in Gaza. These NGOs include Oxfam-GB, CARE, Save the Children and CAFOD.

Based on this material, we discuss the urgent need for DFID to reconsider the extent to which recipient NGOs advance peace and development goals. Although NGOs are in a unique position to effectively respond to humanitarian concerns, DFID should ensure that its funds are not being used to pursue political goals that exacerbate conflict.

To read the full submission, click here.

NGOs promote "Israeli Apartheid Week"

Islam-loving NGOs promote "Israeli Apartheid Week", where lies, fabrications, and false accusations are the order of the day. Via NGO Monitor:

War on Want, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Keshev, I'lam and ICAHD, (whose funders include the EU, Finnish and British governments, and NIF), are joining a number of extremist NGOs to promote "Israeli Apartheid week."

Israeli Apartheid week (IAW) was first held in Canada in 2004. In 2008 it encompasses events in Canada, Mexico, South Africa, the UK, the USA and the Palestinian Territories. Its stated aim, in line with the NGO declaration from the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, is "to create a widespread awareness of Israeli apartheid and to bolster support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign." The organizers assert the "imperative of" "isolat[ing] the Israeli apartheid regime."

Despite serious critiques of such "apartheid" rhetoric, many NGOs continue to use it as a political tool to delegitimize the existence of Israel. War on Want (WoW), which is funded by the UK and Irish governments, featured in Warwick University's program. On February 7, 2008, WoW's Senior Global Justice Campaigner, Ruth Tanner spoke on "Resistance day’: ‘Resisting the occupation: should we bother?" Berkely University, exhibited an ICAHD photographic display and Linda Ramsden, Chair of ICAHD UK is a listed speaker of the UK event. Rochama Marton, founder and President of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), which receives money from the EU and Finnish Embassy among others, addressed a panel at the UK university, SOAS on February 11, 2008. On February 14, SOAS will also host a panel on "Media and Normalising Israeli Apartheid," which lists Yizhar Be’er, Executive Director of Keshev and former executive director of B’Tselem, and Haneen Zoubi, General Director of NIF and British council-funded I’lam, as speakers.

IAW's material selects and distorts facts to support its destructive political agenda, including baseless claims of "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians, the "720 km long concrete wall", and that "[t]orture is used against virtually every Palestinian arrested." The participation of NGOs, funded by governments and the NIF, which claim to promote universal human rights, in an event which distorts these values to demonize Israel, is highly troubling.

Ford Foundation: 2007 Review of Funding for Political NGOs active in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Promoting critical debate and accountability of Human Rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict. From NGO-Monitor:

Summary:

• Ford-funded NGOs led the campaign against Israel at the UN World Conference Against Racism, at Durban in 2001.
• The Ford Foundation's 2007 database of direct grants does not include NGOs which exploit human rights rhetoric as part of the Durban strategy of demonizing Israel. However, Ford does not include information on indirect and continuing funding.
• NGO Monitor’s research shows that PCHR, Miftah and PHRO continued to receive Ford Foundation support in 2007.
• NGO Monitor sent numerous requests for clarification to Ford which were not answered in a substantive manner.
• Many other NGOs, which appeared on Ford's funding database in 2005 and 2006, and which promote boycotts and divestment, and selectively use human rights rhetoric to demonize Israel, continue to list Ford as a donor in 2007.
• These findings raise serious questions of Ford's transparency and its commitment to its own post-Durban guidelines. There is also a real possibility that Ford-funded NGOs will again lead the demonization of Israel at the 2009 follow-up conference to Durban.

Ford Foundation Grantees 2007 – Improvement?

In 2006, NGO Monitor reported a comparative reduction in the Ford Foundation's support for the most virulent NGOs that focus primarily on demonization of Israel under the "Durban strategy". In 2007, none of the problematic NGOs from 2006 were found in the Ford Foundation's grants database. If funding had indeed ceased, this would constitute a marked improvement in Ford's funding practices.

However, research throughout 2007 has revealed that Ford continues to support some of the most radical and politicized NGOs, despite the fact that they have not appeared in its grant database since 2005. The Ford Foundation has consistently failed to answer NGO Monitor's enquiries about multi-year grants and indirect funding not included in its database. In March and November 2007, NGO Monitor contacted the Ford Foundation repeatedly to establish whether any 2005 grant recipients continued to receive support in 2006/7. Ford failed to provide a substantive response.

Ford-funded NGOs from previous years continue to list Ford as donor

NGOs which continue to list Ford as a funding source on their websites, although these are not included in Ford's 2007 database, include

• Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) website states that the organization is funded by the Ford Foundation.
• New Israel Fund website lists the Ford Foundation as under "Special Programs and Partners". In September 2007 Ford renewed its 2003 five-year partnership with NIF, to support civil society, human rights and social justice organizations in Israel. NIF, in turns, funds Adalah, Mossawa, Machsom Watch, Arab Association of Human Rights and HaMoked, Bimkom, I'lam, and other NGOs.
• Miftah lists Ford as a donor in materials provided to NGO Monitor (see below)
• Al-Mezan lists Ford as a project donor for 2006
• Al-Haq – the 2006 Annual Report lists a $100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, $50,000 of which had not been spent by the end of 2006.
• Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO) lists Ford as a donor in its 2006 Annual Report
  Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Centre (JLAC) (On JLAC's list of "Partners 2000-2007" "Ford Foundation, Cairo Office" is listed)
• Interpeace website states that the organization is funded by the Ford Foundation.
• Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) lists Ford as a funding source
• Human Rights Watch still lists the Ford Foundation as a donor of "$100,000 or more" among the organization's "Supporters of General and Endowment Funds – April 2005 – March 2006".
• International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) states that it is supported by the Ford Foundation
• Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) – continues to list Ford as a funding source for "Training and Education in International Affairs" on its website
• Ir Amim continues to list Ford as a supporter on its website

All of these NGOs were contacted[1] in November and December 2007, and asked whether the Ford Foundation remains an active donor. Only PCHR, Miftah, PHRO, Save the Children – UK and HRW responded.

PCHR

PCHR has not appeared in Ford's grant database since 2005. In an email of October 31, 2007 PCHR Director Raji Sourani confirmed that the website was indeed up to date, including the sections on funding. As NGO Monitor has reported, "while PCHR does an important job of describing intra-Palestinian human rights abuses, it is blatantly one-sided in its removal of the context of terror and disregard of human rights abuses committed against Israeli civilians. PCHR also supports 'all the efforts aimed at enabling the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights in regard to self-determination and independence,' including calls for political, economic, and academic boycotts against Israel."

MIFTAH

Miftah has not appeared in Ford's grant database since 2005. Miftah's administrative and financial director Rula Muzaffar attached a list of Miftah's donors for the year 2007 to his email of October 30, 2007. [link to attached excel file] The Ford Foundation appears as a donor for the period March 2003-February 2007, supporting three different projects/activities:

Institutional Support and Policy Formulation.

Empowerment of Women in Negotiations.
Enhancing Accountability in the Public Sector.

Miftah is a political lobbying group which claims to increase "global awareness and knowledge of Palestinian realities by providing policy analysis, strategic briefings and position papers." However, despite claiming to be politically independent, Miftah uses Durban strategy rhetoric, characterizes terrorists as "activists" and "freedom fighters," and promotes highly politicized campaigns that do not contribute to peace. An op-ed on the Miftah website (August 2, 2006) claimed that Israel was deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. The author wrote that Lebanese civilian deaths "are part of a systematic policy carried out by the Israeli military establishment, approved by the highest political echelons, aimed at squashing, silencing and obliterating any voice of rebellion, anyone who dares stand up to the beast." Miftah has also described suicide bombings against civilians as "resistance." An article of July 5, 2006 about Palestinian women during the last six years of violence stated that "several young women also decided to join the ranks of the resistance movement", went on to describe the first Palestinian female suicide bombing and commented that "this marked the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause."

Palestinian Human Rights Organization

PHRO was listed in Ford's 2006 grant database, but not in the 2007 list. General Director Assistant Rola Badran responded to NGO Monitor’s inquiry that all the details requested were available in the following link: PHRO's Annual Report 2006 (page 48). The Ford Foundation is listed as contributing $74,972.00 to support PHRO's strategy at the end of September 2006.

PHRO is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) and La Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH) (also listed as supported by the Ford Foundation), both heavily involved in the demonization of Israel. PHRO also participated in the 2001 Durban Conference and continues to promote the NGO strategy adopted there, including accusing Israel of "apartheid and ethnic cleansing," as well as "perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including… acts of genocide," and calls for "complete and total isolation of Israel."

In July 2006, PHRO issued a report titled, "Lebanon Crisis… Israel Severe Breaches to the International Law". This report was prepared "in light of Israel's assault on Lebanon" and describes "genocide in Qana" and "Israel's actions in Killing Civilians, imposing a Siege on Lebanon, Disproportionate Use of Forces, Using Prohibited Weapons in addition to Collective Punishment."

Human Rights Watch (HRW)

HRW featured in Ford's list of 2006 grantees, as receiving a restricted $300,000 grant for an HIV/AIDS program and a $60,000 grant for a full-time researcher in Brazil. Yet HRW still lists the Ford Foundation as a donor of "$100,000 or more" among the organization's "Supporters of General and Endowment Funds – April 2005 – March 2006". In response to NGO Monitor's request for clarification Helen Raynsford from HRW UK replied that "the information that you have asked for is confidential."

Save the Children – UK

The Save the Children Fund received two grants from the Ford Foundation in 2006: $50,000 to support the prospective Save the Children China Foundation, and $200,000 was given to Save the Children to fund human rights education in Egypt, Lebanon, and Morocco. Save the Children no longer list Ford as a donor, and Customer Service Advisor Ellie Mcleod (Individual Giving) said she could not offer a response to our enquiry due to "the number of similar requests that we receive and our limited resources." In the past, this organization has promoted the Palestinian version of the conflict in material designed for teachers.

The New Israel Fund (NIF)

As noted in NGO Monitor's 2006 report, following intense criticism of its role in funding NGOs involved in the 2001 Durban NGO Forum, the Ford Foundation announced a five-year partnership with NIF. This entailed a $20 million grant to establish a new peace and social justice fund. In September 2007, the Ford Foundation announced a second $20 million grant to extend this partnership for an additional five years. The Ford Foundation is mentioned on NIF's website under "Special Programs and Partners". However, NIF is not included in Ford's 2007 grants database.

Conclusion

The Ford Foundation released guidelines after the 2001 Durban conference which declare that it will not fund NGOS that " promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities." This prohibition is applicable to all of the organization's activities, and not merely those supported by a direct grant from Ford.

The evidence presented in this update shows that changes in Ford's grant database in 2006 and 2007 do not fully reflect implementation of the post-Durban changes in funding policy, and raise questions about Ford's commitment to transparency. PCHR, Miftah and PHRO selectively apply human rights terminology to demonize Israel, and actively promote the Durban Strategy, including boycotts and divestment.

Ford stated objectives are to "strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement." But the continued funding of these and possibly other groups not listed in the data base for 2007 contradicts these goals, as well as the commitments made after Durban 2001. In this context, there is a very real possibility that Ford-funded NGOs will again lead the demonization of Israel at the 2009 Durban follow-up conference.---

[1] NGO Monitor asked the following NGOs about their donors in 2007:

PCHR, Al-Haq, Miftah, Al-Mezan, PHRO, DWRC, JLAC, Muwatin, Interpeace, PANORAMA, Save the Children – UK (SCF), HRW, ICJ, FIDH, PASSIA, Ir Amim.

Only PCHR, Miftah and PHRO were helpful in supplying relevant information. Save the Children – UK (SCF) and HRW replied that they did not have resources to reply.

The rest of the NGOs, as well as the EMHRN, failed to respond.

HRW's Gaza Statement: Moral Muddle and False Allegations

Promoting Accountability in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. From NGO Monitor:

• The statement written by Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemning Israel’s response to rocket bombardment from Gaza exploits and distorts international law.
• Of the 34 paragraphs, Stork only mentions the hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel in two sentences, demonstrating the double standards in this invective.
• HRW’s claim that Gaza remains “occupied” is a politically based fiction designed to negate Israel’s legal and moral right to self-defense.
• There is no legal or moral precedent for a country to be forced to provide a hostile neighbor with the means to continue attacks on its territory and against its civilians.
• HRW’s statement is a moral muddle that further undermines the universality of human rights.

HRW Accuses Israel of “Word Games” and Patronizes Hamas

A number of politicized NGOs have condemned Israel’s responses to the rocket attacks from Gaza. In parallel, HRW, World Vision, FIDH, Al Haq, and Defence for Children International,1 addressed the UN Human Rights Council, repeating their allegations against Israel. In contrast, as numerous media reports demonstrated, the impact on the civilian population was orchestrated by the Hamas leadership, including staged scenes of hardship.

Joel Stork of Human Rights Watch (HRW) joined this campaign with a statement on January 26. Following HRW’s well-established pattern of statements related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this one paints a very incomplete and selective picture of the crisis in Gaza. Joe Stork, who has been "acting director" of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division for many years, and has a history of anti-Israel campaigning, accuses Israeli leaders of “playing word games", as if the daily rocket attacks were of no consequence. Stork patronizingly absolves Hamas of all responsibility for the attacks and response, claiming that “Gazans can’t turn on the lights, get tap water, buy enough food, or earn a living without Israel’s consent.” HRW demands that Israel end its “collective punishment” (a term that is not applicable to the Israeli policy2), while failing to demand that the Hamas government put an end to the daily rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by “Palestinian armed groups”.

Stork Invents “Facts”

Stork also gets the facts wrong, including the false implication that Israel cut off electricity supplies to Gaza.3 In reality, Israel decreased fuel supplies but maintained its provision of electricity to Gaza. HRW’s statement also omits the fact that Israel supplied Gaza with cooking gas, 500,000 liters of diesel fuel for generators, primarily for hospitals, 2.2 million liters of industrial fuel for power plants, and 50 trucks of humanitarian aid.
While many journalists acknowledged that Hamas manipulated and manufactured this “humanitarian crisis”, including ordering bakery owners to keep their stores closed, this was inconsistent with Stork’s objective. He also ignored evidence that fuel intended for a European hospital in Gaza was diverted to supply the “Hamas-affiliated Executive Force.” HRW’s portrayal of the mass exodus through the border with Egypt as an act of desperation in response to the Israeli “blockade” is also misleading, in the light of the televisions and other luxury goods purchased by the Palestinians. They were clearly not starving, or in the middle of a life-threatening crisis.

HRW’s Own Word Games

As in most of HRW’s reporting on the Israeli-Arab conflict, this statement includes numerous misstatements and distortions of international law.4 Following Palestinian claims, HRW asserts that since Israel “still controls Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, and land borders”, it is an “occupier”, but fails to cite any provision of the Geneva or Hague Conventions – the international treaties that establish the law of occupation. In contrast, Article 6of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states that a foreign power is only considered an occupier "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory." Since 1995, and certainly since Israel’s disengagement in 2005, Gaza's Palestinian population has been under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction.5 And Stork’s “facts” to the contrary, Gaza’s southern border is controlled by Egypt (and not only for “this week”, in Stork’s version.)

Minimizing Palestinian Terror

Stork’s ideology-based analysis also minimizes the context of terror, making only passing reference to the barrage of rocket attacks launched from Gaza on Israeli civilians. Between January 16 and 21, 2008, more than 225 rockets have been launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza against Israeli towns. From June to December 2007, the totals were 475 missiles and 631 mortar bombs. In addition, HRW fails to ascribe responsibility for these attacks to the Hamas government but rather only to “Palestinian armed groups” and “militants”.

Following HRW’s long-established pattern of ignoring the human rights of Israelis under daily bombardment from Gaza, Stork claims Israel’s real security concerns are merely a pretext to “arbitrarily block[], delay[] and harass[] people with emergency medical problems who need to leave Gaza for urgent care” or to prevent “6,000 people with foreign citizenship, permanent foreign residency, work permits, student visas, or university admissions abroad,” from leaving Gaza. In this case, as well HRW is very selective with factual claims, omitting several instances where Palestinians have exploited Israel’s humanitarian policies to carry out terror attacks. In May 2007, for instance, a pregnant woman and her niece, who had been granted permission to seek medical treatment in Ramallah, were arrested for planning to carry out a double suicide attack in Tel Aviv and Netanya. In another incident four weeks ago, terrorists attempted to smuggle in explosives materials into Gaza hidden in sacks of sugar marked as European Union aid.

The result is a moral muddle and double standards that undermine universal human rights. As in many of its previous campaigns, such as “Razing Rafah” (October 2004), the flood of biased condemnations in the 2006 Lebanon War, the so-called “Gaza beach incident” (June 2006), false charges of war crimes in Jenin (2002), etc. HRW misuses and exploits international law to further political campaigns against Israel.

Notes

1 Al Haq and Defence for Children International submitted a written statement to the Council.

2 "The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt. None of Israel's actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.” Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 2008

3 Echoing the Palestinian narrative, Stork alleges that Israel “denies civilians the food, fuel and medicine needed to survive”.

4 For examples, see NGO Monitor’s analyses of HRW’s Lebanon War reporting.

5 See Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 2008

Themes: Human Rights Watch (HRW)

HomePage Essential: Human Rights Watch (HRW) October 17, 2006

NGO Monitor Updates:
IDF investigation concludes that use of cluster munitions in 2006 Lebanon war did not violate international law
December 25, 2007

NGO Monitor Reports: "HRW and Amnesty Promote Caterpillar Boycott"
April 13, 2005
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Human Rights Watch letter to Knesset condemning terror suspect detention bill
April 12, 2006
NGO Monitor Digest (Vol. 4 No. 8)

NGO Monitor Reports: Report on HRW’s Activities in 2006: Political Bias Undermines Human Rights
June 26, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: HRW/FIDH/OMCT statement on NGO official linked to PFLP
May 14, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Analysis of Ken Roth´s Defense of HRW´s Policy on Israel
March 15, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Gaza beach incident: Timeline of HRW involvement and activities June 9-21 2006
June 21, 2006
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Special Report: "HRW´s Report on Gaza: Lacking Credibility"
October 18, 2004
NGO Monitor

Articles of Interest: "The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia"
February 02, 2007
Andres Ballesteros, Jorge A. Restrepo, Michael Spagat, and Juan F. Vargas

Two NGO-Monitor resource links

I've added two important links to NGO-Monitor and to NGO-Monitor Blog; both are critical resources which promote accountability in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Please add these links to your own list of resources and research tools.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org and http://blog.ngo-monitor.org.

Analyzing the NGO Campaign on Gaza - Beyond the Rhetoric

Promoting accountability in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

~~ In January, Israel reduced fuel supplies to Gaza following rocket barrages aimed at Sderot, Ashkelon and other cities. (Between June and December 2007, 475 missiles and 631 mortar bombs were launched; in January 2008 these attacks intensified). While the Israeli measures were limited, and designed to force an end to the attacks without resorting to a full scale military operation, the Hamas leadership sought to create an image of widespread suffering and “collective punishment”. In parallel, supporters are again pressing efforts on a UN resolution to condemn Israel.

~~ As in the past, a number of international NGOs have joined in this campaign, including Amnesty International, Oxfam, and World Vision. (As of January 22, 2008, Human Rights Watch and Christian Aid had not issued statements.) These NGO statements and press releases use the politicized rhetoric of human rights, such as “collective punishment” and "crimes against humanity," in selective and one-sided condemnations.

~~ Amnesty International has been the most active NGO in the current campaign, and its January 21 statement (Gaza Blockade: 'collective punishment' condemned) demonstrates the exploitation of human rights for political goals. The headline and most of the text focuses exclusively on the “Gaza blockade”, and accuses Israel of "collective punishment" – an inappropriate term used frequently to promote political objectives.[1] While Amnesty "acknowledged Israel's right to take measures to protect its population from rocket and other attacks," this statement was disconnected from the rest of the condemnation.

~~ In addition, Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, demonizes Israel by claiming (against all evidence) that Israel's border closure "appears calculated to make an already dire humanitarian situation worse”, one in which "the most vulnerable -- the sick, the elderly, women and children -- will bear the brunt, not those responsible for the attacks against Israel…" The Amnesty statement also incongruously claims that "the Israeli authorities cite unspecified 'security' reasons" to justify closures, erasing the use of “civil” materials for Palestinian rocket bombardment, and the incidents, including one last week in which tons of potassium nitrate used for explosives were found in humanitarian shipments from the EU to Gaza.

~~ Oxfam’s statements parallel Amnesty’s. In a January 20, 2008 press release, this NGO accuses Israel of "collective punishment," and Barbara Stocking, Oxfam UK's executive director, blamed both sides, erasing the distinction between terror and defense (as in Oxfam's statements in November 2007 on similar issues). World Vision, a frequent contributor to such campaigns, issued a statement on January 21, 2008 headlined 'Gaza: worsening violence and humanitarian conditions' . This statement included a general condemnation of the "wave of violence between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces […]," and then focused on accusations against Israel.

Activities by Palestinian and Israel-based NGOs

As in many similar instances documented by NGO Monitor, NGOs that promote the Palestinian narrative by using the language of human rights and international law have been very active in this campaign.. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions – ICAHD (funded by the EU), Alternative Information Centre (funded by the Irish Government via Christian Aid), Physicians for Human Rights (Israel), Bat Tsafon, Gush Shalom, and The Women’s Coalition for Peace issued a joint declaration on January 21, 2008 – 'Gaza: An Israeli Call for Urgent Action' – which accuses the Israeli government of “serious war crimes” and claims Israeli policy represents "a clear and unequivocal crime against humanity." In a separate statement issued January 21, ICAHD referred briefly to the suffering of the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and then blamed Israel for the "siege", which, it asserted, is the 'root cause' of all Palestinian suffering and violence, asserting “The siege is an immoral act and a violation of International Law…."

Other groups (many funded by the European Union and the New Israel Fund) including Adalah, B’Tselem, Gisha, Ha-Moked, PCHR, Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, and others, published a statement and petition on January 21, demanding an Israeli Supreme Court injunction to "prevent Israel from continuing to bar fuel from reaching Gaza." This statement repeated the slogans of the NGO campaign: "Israel’s continuing punitive sanctions against the population of Gaza are intended to harm Palestinian civilians for political purposes, and amount to collective punishment, which is illegal under international law.” (The NGOs ignored B’Tseslem’s January 16 statement headline: Ecuadorian citizen killed by Palestinian gunfire in the south of Israel. Addressing Hamas, they declared “Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a 'grave breach' of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.”) Criticism of NGO Statements

A January 21, 2008 op-ed in the The Jerusalem Post by Erik Schechter – 'Prisoners of Gaza', challenged the double-standards of NGOs such as Amnesty International and Gisha, as well as Human Rights Watch, in their condemnation’s of Israeli policy on Gaza. Schechter notes that Gisha's January 2007 report, Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza (analyzed in detail by NGO Monitor), "comes off vague and arbitrary…The group offers no formula for how much 'indirect control' makes an occupation. Nor it does explain how [Israel's] domination of Gazan airspace and waters differs from an ordinary blockade."

Schechter also reports that "most other military occupations (i.e., foreign rule, troops and settlers) go unremarked upon by the human rights community," citing the conflict in Western Sahara. But "none of this registers with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Both groups insist on calling Western Sahara a 'disputed territory' or 'Moroccan-administered' - anything but 'occupied. … This legal conservatism stands in stark contrast to the super-elastic category used for Gaza." Schecther continues: "Explaining, the contradiction, Human Rights Watch legal adviser James Ross tells me that his group uses terms "widely accepted" by the international community. True, interested parties often shape this discourse, but not to worry: The law, not the label, is what counts. And human rights law is applied to Western Sahara…"

In a separate analysis, Prof. Elihu Richter, from the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health, has noted that “There is no hope for change in the current dismal situation until the international NGO's stop applying paradigms in which the perpetrators of terror directed against entire populations are presented as the victim, and the targets of such terror are seen as the perpetrators. …Outsiders who tolerate, condone or endorse or remain silent about genocidal terror are as much a part of the problem as the perpetrators.”

---[1] The term "collective punishment" in these statements is inconsistent with international law, morality and common sense. Article 33 of the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 states that "collective penalties and likewise all other measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited [by the Convention]". Drafted following World War II, the provision was designed to outlaw killing of civilians by an occupying power as a retaliatory response to acts of sabotage or resistance. Such acts included Nazi atrocities including the 1944 massacre of thousands of Polish civilians in Warsaw. The exploitation of this term to condemn Israel's policy in response to terror attacks reflects the politicized agenda of the NGO community.